by Dr. Jeff Skousen: Editor, Reclamation Matters & West Virginia University
The following article is reprinted by permission from Reclamation Matters, Issue 2 2006, the official publication of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation.
A colleague and I were recently discussing the numerous and disparate voices that are heard on various environmental issues. Some voices cry out that the world is rapidly coming to an end based on the latest information on global warming, ozone thinning, nuclear waste, water pollution, over-population, or infectious diseases. Other voices counter that there are no environmental catastrophes and that all these crises are overblown. Most of us quietly read or listen to the voices of the so-called experts and either dismiss or embrace their opinions based on our own biases. As informed and honest scientists, however, we continually wonder whether we have reached the correct conclusion. So, we question our position on these subjects and we search high and low for new data from a variety of sources to add to our knowledge. We decide which sources are credible, carefully read their results and interpretations, and try to synthesize and balance the information into a coherent and rational set of statements, that establishes-and sometimes refines-our feelings on the subject.
The problem with most of the persistent environmental conflicts is that the data do not give conclusive evidence and do not directly point out answers, or trends, for an issue. In fact, for many of these complex issues, prognosticators come to completely opposite interpretations using the same data! And this is the very reason why we hear so many conflicting voices, because the data and interpretations are not clear about causal relationships.
My friend then mentioned something he had learned long ago that provides insight here: “A person is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts!” Much of the contention and confusion surrounding environmental conflicts are centered in the way that some people use only the data or facts that support their position and ignore any contrary or opposing facts. The breakdown occurs when a person does not use all the facts, and hence becomes closed-minded.
Ultimately, the responsibility for gathering facts about complex issues and reaching an educated opinion rests with each individual. Re-adjusting and refining a stance on any particular subject is an ongoing process, and contingent upon securing sound, up-to-date information.
In reclamation science, we are largely over the screaming and yelling about whether land should, or should not, be reclaimed. Clearly, disturbed areas must be reclaimed, and we must continually search for the best methods of reclamation. Our field has a collection of true and tried approaches for reclaiming lands, whether the problem involves land slides, subsidence, acid mine drainage, water management, erosion, seed bed preparation, or revegetation. But, even today new technologies and new methods are still being discovered, and we need to have open minds and to seek all the facts-not just the ones that fit our biases and past experiences-to expand our knowledge base and to implement new ideas.